Posted
by
timothy
on Friday April 16, 2010 @07:17AM
from the each-whistle-is-coded-to-the-blower dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Baltimore Sun reports that in a rare legal action against a government employee accused of leaking secrets, a grand jury has indicted Thomas A. Drake, a former senior National Security Agency official, on charges of providing classified information to a newspaper reporter in hundreds of e-mail messages in 2006 and 2007. Federal law prohibits government employees from disclosing classified information which could be 'expected to cause damage to national security.' The indictment (PDF) does not name either the reporter or the newspaper that received the information, but the description applies to articles written by Siobhan Gorman, then a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, that examined in detail the failings of several major NSA programs, costing billions of dollars, that were plagued with technical flaws and cost overruns. Gorman's stories did not focus on the substance of the electronic intelligence information the agency gathers and analyzes but exposed management and programmatic troubles within the agency."
Adds reader metrometro: "Of note: the government says the alleged NSA mole uses Hushmail, which is all the endorsement I need for a security system." Perhaps Mr. Drake was unaware of Hushmail's past cooperation with the US government?

Whistle blower protections only apply when you report the misdeeds to the congressional oversight committee in charge of the organization in question, not when you leak classified information to the press.
Not that I disagree with the leaking, just that the law is clear on who gets protected.

Meh, "job security" clearances are just that... jobs for Americans that legally can't be outsourced. It keeps the middle-class Americans with degrees employed and content so they aren't off organizing revolutions for the lower classes or something. From what I've seen, the shroud of secrecy is more to hide all the advanced technology that we don't have rather than to protect details of the few things that actually work. Let the enemy assume we have bugs and eyes and ears everywhere like it's portrayed in

Check out Glenn Greenwald's [salon.com] post on this exact issue. He raises an extremely important point:

- Illegally wiretapping US citizens, and/or ordering illegal wiretapping of US citizens: No problem, we have to look forwards, not backwards.- Exposing illegal and inefficient workings of the NSA: throw the book at 'em.

He broke the letter of the law by passing classified information, and therefore should be sent to trial. In the spirit of the law all the nitty-gritty details of his mitigating situation needs to come out on open record.

An the process continued for any other persons demonstrated as having performing illegal acts. "It's not illegal when the president does it" is not a legal justification for Constitution violations, no matter if you like or dislike the last two president actively caught doing so.

Yar! That LFNB (it sucks we need that acronym) article he wrote was sad and true. I wasn't expecting the world to transform into ponies and rainbows when I voted for Obama, but I sure as hell didn't expect this.

The real problem here is that officials use the security system to hide their fuck ups. By making all kinds of crap classified that shouldn't be they clog the system and reduce the efficiency. It's impossible to run a security system when you flood it with tons of info that is only classified because it's embarrassing to the morons in management.

By making all kinds of crap classified that shouldn't be they clog the system and reduce the efficiency. It's impossible to run a security system when you flood it with tons of info that is only classified because it's embarrassing to the morons in management.

Au contraire! My friend.

Imagine being a spy trying to find some interesting piece of information. You spend a couple of days seducing the secretary, a week finding a geek to crack the codes, another week to go to Italy to replace the suit you just ruined while chasing, on motorboat, the guy who had the passkeys, etc...

Two months later, the information you just got is random useless crap about a lowly manager fucking up his job in various ways and you just lost your best opportunity of novelizing your adventures.

What fuck ups, someone made/spent "billions of dollars".
The NSA was pointed at the US telco networks and set to suck.
The voice prints, known numbers and dictionary settings did the rest.
Cross referenced with commercial databases and commercial indexing software, more connections where made.
It worked and your safe.
NSA members can enter the private sector if they like, moonlight like the CIA? or enjoy budgets and toys within the NSA thanks to the funds.
A "fuck up" to the NSA would be something simple:
A

I agree that over-classification is a problem from a transparency point of view. However, I disagree that it decreases efficiency - in fact efficiency and convenience is one of the big reasons that documents are unnecessarily classified to begin with. When you work on a classified system (like a computer) any documents you generate are automatically treated as classified at the highest level that the system is approved to process. Decreasing or declassifying a document requires you to go through a formal pr

Agreed. When I heard this story on NPR last night the first thing I thought was that this person might be a protected whistleblower, as it appears that the "state secrets" that were leaked don't relate to national security as much as bureaucratic incompetence and governmental inefficiency. The NPR story doesn't seem to mention the idea that this person might be considered a whistle-blower (admittedly I didn't catch all of the story.) The infamous "most Americans" oh heck, maybe even most Americans (not ju

You should have been up-modded for your sig alone! OMG I can't stop laughing, at Jean-Louis Gasse. Nonetheless, although I have seen first hand that Windows is responsible for an enormous amount of inefficiency in large Federal bureaucracies, I suspect that the nature of the problems in the NSA is different. The problems and costs introduce by use of Windows on desktops and servers isn't something that anyone in the NSA would blow the whistle on. Since it's not any different any other place in governmen

I fail to see what would be wrong with sending encrypted emails backed by chained proxies, Tor, etc. It's not like the information is even secret--the whole point was to have it disclosed in a newspaper. Given that he might come under occasional (or constant) investigation by the authorities simply because of the nature of his job, avoiding a physical presence as well as any unusual behavior is a must. What would you recommend as an alternative?

I think the real problem was simply that he sent "hundreds of messages" to the same guy. As soon as the NSA points their attention at that guy, they have access to everything, no matter the medium of communication. Before that they already probably have their list of culprits narrowed down significantly based on the info that was being disclosed. Once they know where to get the unencrypted messages they can analyze them for writing characteristics (such as word frequencies) which correspond to one of their employees, assuming their aren't much more blatant clues slipped in. It may even be at some point he simply had no choice but to reveal details about his identity/job to convince the reporter he was a legitimate leak--I mean, if you perfectly anonymize yourself how do you convince anyone you aren't just a hoaxer? Even if the reporter can successfully destroy any evidence of the content of such communications, that doesn't mean he won't squeal when some scary guys from the government pick him up off the street and tell him horror stories about what might happen to him if it doesn't. (the fact they wouldn't mention who the reporter was could be evidence of his cutting a deal)

Was he cultivating a member of the press with real info only to leak in something NSA/CIA creative years later?
Or he thought the NSA does not like to listen for any mention of its projects in US emails:)

but that's all sound and fury surrounding the real issue of what was actually disclosed, and why

the substance of his disclosures and what motivated him: wasted tax payer dollars on lame NSA projects

as far as i am concerned, for his actions, this guy is a hero. we need MORE government employees like this. and his timing is impeccable, government waste is pissing off the country like never before right now: perhaps the tax party can make him some sort of patron saint?

for example: the security apparatus around nuclear power plants, that should not be exposed and anyone who does should be punished. that's what i was talking about

but something like bush and cheney's end runs around the constitution: yeah, that should be exposed

so i apologize, you are correct:

i should have qualified my comments better, as i was only really talking about the kind of state secrets like missile launch sequences, that should never be divulged publicly. but you are correct to take issue with my

Yes, but I as an Australian am legally allowed to expose the state secrets of China in Austraila. It's not a crime. If (figuratively speaking) I happened to expose the points at which the Australian Defence Signals Directorate was in violation of Australian law, you can bet your backside I'd be sent to jail - Even if I just outlined the higher level details and not the specific collection systems, my backside would still be toast. In theory you are supposed to follow the chain of command if you see somethin

going public means they can't sweep the issue under the rug. public anger compels the system to actually fix the problem. this is the function of the press in a healthy society. i don't know why you think problems could be solved without public knowledge and outrage breathing down bureaucrats necks. without the public knowledge and outrage, no solution would be forthcoming, ever

Ok, let's say that Program X was a disaster. What you also expose by leaking this is that we don't have the capabilities of Program X. In other words, other intelligence agencies understand what we can and cannot do.

I would be entirely sure that the Congressional committees know perfectly well that a program is messing up. And while we should be concerned about technical projects being mismanaged or being messed up (not that that doesn't occur in private industry, right?), let's not kid ourselves.

it could be said that reagan's completely bullshit star wars program spooked the russians, and if it was publicly revealed how much money was being wasted on complete crap, the russians wouldn't have been so spooked

however, if you are playing this game of managing perception and deceit, you've entered the rarified, high paranoia stratosophere of smoke and mirrors where the other side might also equally conclude that a "public disclosure" that a program is a failure is a lie in order to hide real deadly capa

That someone is getting in trouble for whistleblowing is not especially news.

But this kind of whistleblowing is always going to end badly for the whistleblower, because even if a legitimate transparency function is served (calling attention to wasteful and inefficient program administration), the programs themselves are classified. In the public eyes, they're not supposed to even exist. To praise them in public would also be a breach of classific

Hushmail is notorious in certain circles for sharing people's PGP keys with investigators who come knocking. This was in relation to DEA and Customs investigations in Operation Web Tryp to crack down on people using the internet to get ahold of research chemical indoleethylamines and phenethylamines (read: designer psychedelics). A lot of these people were using Hushmail, and when the investigators went to Hushmail, the provider burned their users. If they'll rat you out to the DEA and Customs, bet your sweet ass they'll rat you out to the NSA. Fuck, read this article at Cryptome [cryptome.info].

If you need any expectation at all of ACTUAL privacy (the kind that'll keep you out of prison), don't use Hushmail. Someone people actually trust, like maybe the people behind Wikileaks, should start a real anonymous mail network.

The point of Hushmail was to make PGP-encrypted email easier to use for people who don't understand PGP encryption. As part of this, Hushmail has/had some sort of java client to encrypt your messages for you. They were logging that data and giving it to the DEA. Not everyone who'd like to protect their privacy has the time or faculties to educate themselves on cryptosystems.

If you can't be bothered to put forward the minimal effort it takes to make and distribute your own PGP keys, privacy really isn't that important to you. Using a provider like Hushmail is worse than no encryption at all, as it gives you a false sense of security.

If you need any expectation at all of ACTUAL privacy (the kind that'll keep you out of prison), don't use Hushmail.

As noted in the prior/. thread on this, Hushmail uses two mode: stupid and secure. They explain as much when you sign on.

In stupid, they do all the work for you, webmail style, which means they have a copy of your key. You are now screwed.

In secure, encryption is done in a Java applet, which is open source. That means (barring any man in the middle weirdness with the Java download) they do not have access to your keys, because they are never sent. While they would certainly "rat you out" if they don't have the goods, they can cheerfully comply with the law (or the NSA pseudo legal equivalent) without providing much of value: just encrypted emails. This appears the be the basis of the government's evidence: the alleged leaker sent a lot of encrypted email. Their indictment, however, did not mention the specific contents of that email, probably because they can't read it.

Alternatively, FireGPG seems like a good option for webmail. More secure systems exist, but as always, in the real world security balances against user experience and people sure seem to like this webmail thing.

In secure, encryption is done in a Java applet.... they do not have access to your keys, because they are never sent. While they would certainly "rat you out" if they don't have the goods, they can cheerfully comply with the law (or the NSA pseudo legal equivalent) without providing much of value: just encrypted emails.

The NSA is one of the few organizations that I would expect to be able to break the encryption on a mass of encrypted e-mails -- not by brute forcing it, but by awesome cryptanalysis. I'd be

The NSA is one of the few organizations that I would expect to be able to break the encryption on a mass of encrypted e-mails -- not by brute forcing it, but by awesome cryptanalysis. I'd be surprised if the Java applet didn't have some implementation errors, or the data being encrypted had enough recognizable patterns in it to allow some work with known plaintexts.

For people using the java applets, at law enforcement's request, Hushmail pushes out a backdoored applet to grab the encryption keys."Hushmail recommends using non web-based services such as GnuPG and PGP Desktop for those who need stronger security."

You can have secure e-mail communication, it's just not point-and-click convienent.

In secure, encryption is done in a Java applet, which is open source. That means (barring any man in the middle weirdness with the Java download) they do not have access to your keys, because they are never sent.

They solved this issue by sending a trojaned Java applet to the victim. There's no convenient way of verifying it.

What should they do? If you're doing something illegal and the law enforcement agencies start investigating you, should hushmail aid and abet? If I suspected my neighbor was brewing meth in his kitchen would I go to the police? Probably not. Because (a) it's just a suspicion, and (b) he has a right to privacy. But if I had evidence and the police ASKED me for it, I'd sure as hell give it to them.

Also, I don't recall hushmail ever advertising that they would NOT cooperate with law enforcement agencies.

If you need any expectation at all of ACTUAL privacy (the kind that'll keep you out of prison), don't use Hushmail. Someone people actually trust, like maybe the people behind Wikileaks, should start a real anonymous mail network.

I don't trust Wikileaks--they have an agenda, and it isn't simply informing people about things which are unlawfully/immorally kept hidden. I will grant that they are serving an important function right now, and I am grateful for this... but trust? No way.

The copyright nazis tell me that I can't watch that interview since I'm in Canada, but I watch the show and saw the interview as it ran (presumably edited), and had no issues with it. Assange was saying that part of the promise they make to their sources is that they will use the material they receive for maximum political effect. They put the full video out there for people to make their own conclusions, and even though Assange said himself that only 1 in 10 watched the full video after seeing the edited o

1) unreasonable searches and seizures by2) agencies under no or very little congressional oversight3) which have secret budgets?

I think you and the tea partiers will be slightly disappointed once you get around to understanding the constitution instead of reading it for selective applications of your own biases.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Your point 1 requires evidence. What unreasonable searches and seizures do you refer to?
Your point 2 is clearly false. There are committees in both the House and Senate whose job is to oversee the intelligence agencies. Note that this... person... did not report to those committees, even anonymously or under the whistleblower protections, but leaked to the media instead.
Your point 3 is covered by Article I Section 8. If you want to make a case that all budgets must be entirely disclosed at some given

What exactly do you think the NSA does? Are you really that credulous?

If you want to make a case that all budgets must be entirely disclosed at some given level of detail, I'd love to hear it.

Article 1, Section 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Are you disputing the government's authority to operate clandestine intelligence agencies? If so, I'd love to hear the argument for that, too.

They have shown repeatedly [wikipedia.org] that they are incapable of controlling themselves when there is no oversight. The NSA and CIA and FBI have repeatedly operated outside the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws.

But the solution for that is not turning a blind eye while people spill our secrets in wartime.

Do you think you're channelling Thomas Jefferson or Stalin with that kind of outlook?

Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension. -Thomas Jefferson

By pointing to Wikipedia, you undermine your own argument. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

A "regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." It is. The budget is published, with certain details redacted for national security purposes. This is completely legal and constitutional.

Your Jefferson quote does not support your position. Drake is not being held without benefit of habeas corpus. He has been charged with a c

By pointing to nothing, you fail to make an argument. I check the sources.

The budget is published, with certain details redacted for national security purposes.

Here's sworn testimony from the Director of the CIA that contradicts your claims:

Finally, in evaluating whether to release the total intelligence appropriation, I have to consider whether a release could add to information that is already available to hostile individuals in a way that could reasonably be expected to reveal or lead to identification of other information that could damage the national security. Information that is in the public domain is not, in fact, entirely accurate. Where official release of the budget total, even if it does not itself reveal all the sensitivities of the intelligence Community, would provide valuable analytic benchmarks or clues to make our sensitive intelligence activities, sources, or methods more readily and precisely identifiable by hostile services and groups, then official release reasonably could be expected to damage the national security.

No budget is published. There is nothing to redact, and any redaction would be a violation of providing a regular statement of account, notwithstanding the direct violation of taking money out of the treasury for unlawful purposes. Not being aware of the facts undermines your argument pretty seriously, don't you think?

Your Jefferson quote does not support your position.

The word you're missing is context. Medcalf tried to make the assertion that wartime is an excuse for breaking the laws of our country. I demonstrated that this belief was not shared by at least one of our founding fathers.

This ignores the fact that the war on terrorism is just like the war on jealousy - it's never going to end, and it will be an eternal excuse for abuses of power.

By Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can edit an article at any time, therefore the information in the article can not be trusted at any point in time.

At the time Tennet was Director of the CIA, the intelligence budge was considered classified information. The release of classified information is at the discretion of the federal government. There is a federal budget, the analysis of which is published by no fewer than four different agencies. Maybe you should try researching the federal budget and the budge

By Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can edit an article at any time, therefore the information in the article can not be trusted at any point in time.

Unless you check the sources. Are you aware of how research works? How would you treat Wikipedia differently from Encyclopedia Brittanica? I mean, besides prancing around red herrings.

Maybe you should try researching the federal budget and the budget process.

At no point is there a clear accounting of money spent on intelligence agencies. This violates the constitution. You're free to pretend otherwise; I imagine it's necessary to fill in the holes that your alternate reality requires.

Is there any other power center you'd like to shill for? No, I'm serious. I'd love to see how badl

Please explain how a law stating one may not release classified information is unjust.

If the information is classified to cover up injustice. Which is the purpose of classifying most information.

This is a false statement, as the intelligence budget is no longer considered classified.

Provide a link to the latest detailed account of CIA and NSA spending.

As anyone can change Wikipedia at any time, the information contained in Wikipedia is not fact checked, nor is the veracity of the sources verified.

You know you can click on the links, right? Then look at the domain, and see if it's legit, or look up the ISBN number and do a Google Books search. I'm almost certain you do not understand what the verb "verify" means.

The information he provided was not to cover up injustice, therefore your argument fails.

You know you can click on the links, right? Then look at the domain, and see if it's legit, or look up the ISBN number and do a Google Books search. I'm almost certain you do not understand what the verb "verify" means.

In other words, Wikipedia is an untrusted source. Why should I do that when I can find a trusted and trustable source?

The information he provided was not to cover up injustice, therefore your argument fails.

In addition to describing the technical programs, the Sun articles disclosed a crisis in meeting N.S.A.’s demands for electrical power and described how the agency had rejected a program that had the promise of collecting communications while protecting Americans’ privacy.

Boosh.

In other words, Wikipedia is an untrusted source. Why should I do that when I can find a trusted and trustable source?

So, if I hand you a copy of the NYT that states that martians have landed in SoHo to buy some leather pants, that immediately becomes a fact to you?

I sincerely hope you're feigning stupidity in order to try and salvage

I am afraid you need a refresher in reading comprehension and a course in logic. The program you mention "had the promise of collecting communications while protecting Americans' privacy" but it does not say that any information he provided showed a violation of anyone's privacy nor does it say that the information he provided showed any injustice. Evidence for (or against) one thing is not evidence against (or for) something else.

So, if I hand you a copy of the NYT that states that martians have land

Article 1, Section 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

If you're using this for justifying a detailed accounting of expenditures, I'd rather see it applied to how public money given to banks for "troubled asset relief" was spent. Banks are apparently threatening to appeal to the Supreme Court to keep this info under wraps. The amount wasted on whatever system the NSA was upgrading is complete round-off compared to TARP money.

I bet half of the congressmen on the IOC have been bought bribed or payed for in some other way that prevents them from actually doing anything useful. If a real whistle-blower actually brought something bad to them, they still probably roast him at the stake. Security through obscurity is not. Also, [citation needed].

If you think the Congress is powerless to regulate (or even eviscerate) the intelligence community, you should research the Church Commission. You can argue whether Congress is doing a good or a bad job regulating the intelligence agencies, but that they have the power to do so effectively has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

The Church Commission only happened because it had become obvious to the public - thanks to some careful media investigation - that the various intelligence agencies had been doing some horribly unethical things, including spying on the American public and trying to undermine the anti-war movement and other political dissident groups. If Congress failed to act, their own reputation was at risk. Even then, they were hampered by the fact that most of the evidence had been systematically destroyed or withheld.

What happens when the intelligence agencies lie to their oversight committees? The CIA in particular has been known to lie to its own director, and presumably by extension the president.

As far as your specific arguments: - Moving prisoners to known locations rather than unknown locations really doesn't do much if they're legitimate prisoners. Do you seriously think that, say, Al Qaeda, could launch anything approaching a successful assault on a well-defended military base?
- The capability of

You're discussing operations that clearly fall into the domain of the CIA, military intelligence, etc., clearly NSA wouldn't even know about moving captured enemies. We're fairly sure that Drake disclosed the data for Siobhan Gorman's article simply because Drake should never have had need-to-know for anything outside the NSA.

Intelligence services often don't prosecute leaks because they fear the trial might cause further real damage, but they'll probably prosecute when the trial merely prolongs their emba

Federal government employees released information on Valerie Plame which decimated on-going operations. That pretty much has everything to do with busting a federal employee for releasing data. The main difference is the guy at the NSA is a lowly underling, and those involved in the Valerie Plame incident were in the executive branch, or acting on their behalf.

From what I know, the exposure of Plame's identity did not "decimate" anything. It ended her effectiveness as an agent.

Basically, you are arguing that two wrongs make a right, specifically that because the bozo who got away with exposing Plame's identity this bozo should not be prosecuted for violating his oath of service and federal law. That is a fallacy. Using that reasoning, no murderer should ever be prosecuted because other murderers have gotten away with their crimes.

It is directly related. The Plame incident was a deliberate "leak" to expose a CIA operative who had been supposedly effective in her mission. We will never know how many of her operatives were killed because of the Bush administrations treasonous activity. Yes treasonous. Bush the first signed a law which made it treason to out an operative of the CIA.

I'm not saying that the NSA employee should not be prosecuted. He should be. This administration, instead of "looking forward", should be investigating

So, your idea of a direct relationship is "They both involve leaked information"? That is all it takes? Well, hell, we can just give everyone ever convicted of passing on classified information a pardon./sarcasm

Again, you are arguing using a fallacy, specifically, two wrongs make a right.

The 5 words which I used in my first post pointed to the hypocrisy present in the prosecutions. I'm sorry that I did not elucidate clearly to prevent any possible misunderstanding. I'm really surprised that you were able to take any other implication from that. What exactly, did you think the implication was?

It is not hypocrisy. If the two cases were similar, which they are not, then you might have an argument. As it is, it appears Libby was authorized by the President to release the information. Libby did not break the law in that regard. He was tried for obstruction of justice and perjury.

As Drake was not authorized release the information and Libby apparently was authorized, the cases are not similar, let alone the same.

This raises the question about email providers. Who provides good, private, secure email service? If Hushmail has handed over keys & data on request, I'd rather not pay them €50-100 per year. In truth I'm not an international criminal or James Bond or anything... so I can't really justify too much cost. But surely there is a service which does not retain data for too long and would at least ask for a court order before handing anything over... and does not assume you have the financial backing

One of the very first things you have to do before getting a security clearance is sign a document acknowledging that revealing classified information is punishable by a fine of $10,000 or 10 years in prison or both. If you can't handle that from the outset, you have no business having a security clearance.

Make no mistake: this was a very serious crime. While I applaud this guy's intent, the proper place for his complaint was either the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. From that point on, it is the responsibility of those Congressional committees to follow up on the information. No person other than the Director of Central Intelligence or the President has the authority to release classified information.

If you think that sucks, then imagine the situation where everyone with a clearance got to decide on their own whether that information should be kept secret or not. There wouldn't be any point to having classified information, and you might as well give it all away to the Chinese/Russians, etc. Do you think they'll reciprocate?

Would you say then that Thomas Tamm [wikipedia.org] should be fined or imprisoned for illegally blowing the whistle on the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program? From a position of blindly following the law, he should be, because he revealed classified information to the media. But he exposed illegal government activities that had been classified to hide them from the public, and I would say that he was simply following his civic duty to reveal corruption.

>that examined in detail the failings of several major NSA programs, costing billions of dollars,>that were plagued with technical flaws and cost overrunsI have to thank this guy profusively, now that we know all the problems with mismanagementthere should be an investigation, and they should be held fully accountable, but it will be tough toprove anything, everything might be encrypted.

Also, they learn from their mistakes, now try getting any sort of info from there, it will be almostimpossible. I th